Minutes - 20061024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Gayle Wilson said that a feasibility study was conducted to determine whether a transfer station would work at Eubanks Road. It has been demonstrated that a transfer station could be constructed and operated there. The general consensus with the consultant, staff, City of Durham officials, and the SWAB was that the Durham transfer station option could not meet Orange County's operational needs, nor the timeframe needed to begin transferring waste. The report asks for guidance from the Board as to pursuing the Durham option, identifying another location other than Eubanks Road, or using the Eubanks Road location. Commissioner Carey said that he remembered an idea about a temporary station. Gayle Wilson said that this was discussed at one time, but he could not remember the context. Commissioner Foushee said that there were very compelling arguments for not using a transfer station in Durham. She thinks that this should be eliminated from the discussions. She would like to hear from Gayle Wilson or the SWAB a compelling argument to not look further than the Eubanks Road site. Chair Jacobs said that in 2001 or 2002 the Board talked about siting a facility in an Economic Development District. Commissioner Carey said that he was one of the people that raised concerns about deciding to put the location at Eubanks Road by default. He is still concerned about putting something here another 25 years when the neighborhood has endured it for the last 30 years. He would like to look further and put Eubanks Road on the same plane as the rest of the sites. Rod Visser agreed that this is a very difficult decision. The biggest advantages to the Eubanks Road approach are that the County already owns adequate land at Eubanks Road, the station will be regulated by the State and will have to go through a rigorous approval process, and it might be simpler because the State is very familiar with this site. Gayle Wilson said that the Eubanks Road site is not perfect, but the positive attributes significantly outweigh the negative attributes. There would be no increase in traffic because the trucks come to Eubanks Road now, the infrastructure is already there, the workforce is already there, everyone in the County knows where to go, the site can be connected to a sewer, the site is close to the interstate, and the site is near the center of waste generation. He said that history shawl that solid waste facilities are really hard to site. The SWAB has recommended this site for a transfer station. He said that, the staff does have a good relationship with the neighbors at Eubanks Road. He said that the decision needs to be made soon and the citing process will probably take 6-8 months. He said that if the Board wishes to pursue another site, the staff would start the process as quickly, as fairly, and as publicly as they can. Solid Waste Planner Blair Pollock said that one thing about a transfer station is that it will be completely enclosed with proper ventilation. Jan Sassaman, Chair of the SWAB, said that a transfer station is a building and it can be designed in a pleasing manner. He emphasized that the County is running out of time to move forward with this. Chair Jacobs asked about the rural buffer in relation to the landfill and Gayle Wilson answered that the rural buffer begins at the western boundary of the landfill property. Chair Jacobs asked about the minimal acreage for a transfer site and Gayle Wilson answered that the minimal acreage would be ten acres for buffers, etc. The existing site is 4- 4.5 acres, excluding the buffers. Chair Jacobs asked how long it would take to build a transfer station. Gayle Wilson made reference to Figure 1, page 17, which is a timeline. It will take about a year and a half to build it, but it will take longer than that to design and permit it. Designing and permitting will probably take two and a half years. Chair Jacobs said that he was the one who raised this issue and he thinks that this community has been mitigating everybody else's solid waste for 35 years. He thinks that the problem is that there is logic to what the staff is proposing, but there is also an inherent inequity in continuing to do something that adversely affects the same neighborhood.